DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
B O A R D F O R C O R R E C T I O N O F N A V A L R E C O R D S
2 N A V Y A N N E X
W A S H I N G T O N D C 2 0 3 7 0 - 5 1 0 0
ELP
Docket No. 7754-00
12 April 2002
This is in reference to your application for correction of your
naval record pursuant to the provisions of Title 10, United
States Code, Section 1552.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Navy Records,
sitting in executive session, considered your application on
10 April 2002. Your allegations of error and injustice were
reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and
procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board.
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your
application, together with all material submitted in support
thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations
and policies. In addition, the Board considered the advisory
opinion" furnished by the Awards and Special Projects Branch in
the Office of the Chief of Na-1
February 2002, a copy of which is attached
Operations (OP09B13), dated 19
After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire
record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was
insufficient to establish the existence of probable material
error or injustice. In this connection, the Board substantially
concurred with the comments contained in the advisory opinion.
The archival files of OP09B13 indicate that the Secretary of the
Navy convened a special board to review World War I1 awards for
possible upgrade. However, in December 1946, that board did not
recommend any change in your awafd. Further, an attempt was made
in 1947 to have all awards of the Legion of Merit cases reviewed
and new citations issued, but no secretarial action was taken.
The Board finds no persuasive basis now, some 45 years later, to
change what has already been reviewed and decided by competent
authority
Your fitness report record indicates when your three Silver Star
Medals were issued, but does not indicate when the Legion of
Merit was awarded. It appeared that it must have been sometime
after 19 September 1947 since it was signed by Secretary of the
Navy John L. Sullivan, whose term of office began on that date.
This was more than a year after the Silver Star Medal moved ahead
of the Legion of Merit in precedence. Accordingly, the Secretary
of the Navy, could have awarded the Silver Star Medal in
accordance with the new standards, but chose no to do so.
Accordingly, your application has been denied. The names and
votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.
It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such
that favorable action cannot be taken. You are entitled to have
the Board reconsider its decision upon submission of new.and
material evidence or other matter not previously considered by
the Board. In this regard, it is important to keep in mind that a
presumption of regularity attaches to all official records.
Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval
record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the
existence of probable material error or injustice.
Sincerely,
W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director
D E P A R T M E N T OF T H E N A V Y
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS
2000 NAVY PENTAGON
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20350-2000
I N R E P L Y R E F E R TO
Ser 09B 131A2U5 1548 1
19 February 2002
From: Chief of Naval Operations (N09B 13)
To: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
Subi: REOUEST FOR COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATION IN THE CASE OF CAPT
Ref:
(a) Your letter AEG:.jdh Docket NO; 7754-00 of 2 May 01
(b) 10 U.S.C.
Encl:
( I ) BCNR File
(2) Service Record
I . In response to reference (a), and pursuant to reference (b), enclosure ( 1 ) has been reviewed
and the following comments and recommendation are provided.
requesting an upgrade of his Legion of Merit "V" award to that of a Gold
2. Captain-
Star in lieu of the Fourth Silver Star Medal because, at the time awarded, the Legion of Merit
was given higher precedence than the Silver Star Medal. Subsequently, ALNAV 29 of 22
January 1946 changed the order of precedence.
3. A similar request was previously reviewed on behalf of captai-n
1987 with regard
to the Legion of Merit being upgraded to the "V". At that time, as now, no action can be taken
to change his award. All World War I1 awards were reviewed for possible upgrade and
consistency by a Special Board (Horne Board) convened by the Secretary of the Navy. In its
recommendation to the Secretary of the Navy in December 1946, a change to captai-
award was not recommended. In 1947, an attempt was made to have all Legion of Merit cases
reviewed and new citations possibly issued. No secretarial action was taken. This request was
also forwarded to the Secretary of the Navy's Awards section for revic~vlcnmrmcnts nnd
indicated support of 1987 response.
4. Based upon the above, there is no further action this office can take.
5. Enclosure (2) is returned as requested.
By direction
His Report of Separation was reviewed and it was determined that he was entitled to the Air Medal with four (4) Oak Leaf Clusters (~OLCS), Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal with one (1) Silver and one (1) Bronze Service Star, Philippine Liberation Ribbon, American Campaign Medal, and World War I1 Victory Medal which were forwarded to applicant. Applicant requests award of the Silver Star Medal for World War I1 actions. Your Application for Correction of Military Record will be forwarded to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 01228-03
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. If Capta his date of is the date of rank he would have received upon selection from the FY02 USMC Captain Selection Board. Captain Legge requests back-dating of his date of rank.
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 00359-99
In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 4 May 1999 with enclosure, a copy of which is attached. requested continuation in an active status in 2. captai- order to be considered by the FY-00 Naval Reserve 0-7 Line Promotion Board which convened on 8 February 1999. NPC-911 is responsible for Naval Reserve Continuation Boards.
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 05641-99
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has returned your contested fitness report for 2 July 1997 to 8 May 1998 to your reviewng officer for completion of his certification. In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the report of the PERB. \'tw\;\cd Subj : MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVIS CAPTA THE CASE OF SMC 4.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 02134-02
Pursuant to tlie provisions of reference (a), Sirl~ject hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure ( 1 ) with this Hoard requesting, in effect, tliat tlie applicable naval record be corrected to show pro~noted whet1 l'irst eligible. CONCLUSION Upon review and consideration of all tlie evidence of record, arid especially in light of tlie contents of enclosure (2), tlie Board finds the existence of an inillstice warranting the following corrective action. has been approved...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 01431-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 October 2003. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. The Navy Department Board of Decorations and Medals reviewed Mr. -petition for a Purple Heart.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2000 | 07733-00
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. A review of his service and medical records, and the records at this Headquarters fails to reveal any documentation...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 03637-02
D E P A R T M E N T O F THE NAVY B O A R D F O R C O R R E C T I O N O F N A V A L R E C O R D S 2 N A V Y A N N E X W A S H I N G T O N D C 2 0 3 7 0 - 5 1 0 0 LCC: tl
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 07987-03
V I R G I N I A 2 2 1 3 4 - 5 1 03 I N R E P L Y R E F E R TO: 1610 MMER/PERB s ~ p 1 7 2003 MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS Subj : MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF CAPTAIN p USMC .. . Per MCO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 10 September 2003 to consider captain- petition contained in reference (a). Finally, the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06699-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 April 2002. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Chief of Naval Operations, a copy of which is enclosed. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.